Google Ads

Hey there! We're an open community that values free speech and free thinking on all topics. If that sounds like you, then login or register. It's free and easy. You can also connect with your FaceBook account. Or you can just comment on anything you find of interest, but your comments will then have to wait for moderation before they show.

My agenda if far from being hidden Cheow, though I would phrase it differently than you...I would say that I am trying to discredit the Bible as the word of God by showing its male bias.

Rose

Then don't use the word Bible, use the word all religions since all religions were written with male bias as seems to you and the cited abominations. Since all writings in all religions were inspired by God or gods we need to accept them as true. Of course, some religious passages may be adulterated by human scribes but I believe on the whole most were not. This is evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls which shows little changes in the words or teachings of the Bible that we have today for the last 2,000 years. Would Jesus and the apostles referenced to the passages in the Ot if it has been adulterated?

Even if the Bible and all relgions show male bias, so what? The equality of male and female has been improving throughout the years as human progressed but has yet to reach the ideal state. Same as human technologies and knowledge, I have no doubt that equality between men and women will continue to improve. But will it reached a perfect state by human hands, I doubt so as long as evil remains in this world. The main cause of sufferings, inequality, wickedness are due to evil such as greed, lust, cruelty, deception etc.

God is our refuge.

Ask and You shall receive,
Seek and You shall find,
Knock and the door will be open unto You.

Then don't use the word Bible, use the word all religions since all religions were written with male bias as seems to you and the cited abominations. Since all writings in all religions were inspired by God or gods we need to accept them as true. Of course, some religious passages may be adulterated by human scribes but I believe on the whole most were not. This is evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls which shows little changes in the words or teachings of the Bible that we have today for the last 2,000 years.

So, are you saying that every religion is true because you think they are inspired by their own gods? All religions were made up by men, who created gods to fit their own image. Just because ancient texts have been found that show minimal changes does not mean the god those texts are speaking of is real.

Originally Posted by CWH

Would Jesus and the apostles referenced to the passages in the Ot if it has been adulterated?

What does Jesus referencing the Old Testament have to do with the validity of Yahweh? Like I've said many times before, I think the male, Bronze Age tribal war god, Yahweh was created in the minds of men, and Jesus was just another man who believed in that made up god.

Originally Posted by CWH

Even if the Bible and all relgions show male bias, so what? The equality of male and female has been improving throughout the years as human progressed but has yet to reach the ideal state. Same as human technologies and knowledge, I have no doubt that equality between men and women will continue to improve. But will it reached a perfect state by human hands, I doubt so as long as evil remains in this world. The main cause of sufferings, inequality, wickedness are due to evil such as greed, lust, cruelty, deception etc.

God is our refuge.

Yes, equality between men and women has slowly continued to improve, but no credit can be given to the Bible for that, it is solely because women have continued to fight for equality. Fundamentalist men still think they should rule over women and that women should not teach a man, thanks to the apostle Paul.

Aside from natural disasters and diseases, most human suffering can be laid at the feet of men...god is just an excuse men created to justify their cruel behavior. The cure for human suffering is compassion, if humans started showing each other compassion instead of killing and raping each other like the Bible is full of, the world would be a much better place.

Hello Richard
I see we are diametrically opposed. This is evident from most or your replies to my statements and therefore it is not worth me reasserting them. It is interesting to read your replies and see what arguments you throw up and so, I will answer the questions you have raised.

Originally Posted by RAM

Hey there David,

I see no "JUSTICE" in the eye for an eye law. It is primitive and barbaric. It does not restore the eye that was destroyed, so how is it just? It only creates more suffering in the world.

You see no justice, because you do not look hard enough for how justice is applied. The principle is not about restoring the eye (as I think you know). An eye that has been deliberately poked out by malice cannot be restored. The one who committed the malice should ,by right, forfeit their own eye and realize the suffering they have inflicted on another person. It is not barbaric; only you love to make your wild statements to provoke and appear to want to have the last word. Once your statement has proven to be false and of no value, you should drop it and think of something else to say.
Before we go too far into this; The "eye for an eye" phrase is not found in the OT, and so this could be a made-up law of the Israelites. If you find a reference, please refer to the verse. I still maintain, the law if applied correctly and mercifully, could be better than some of the law we have now and that this law has its merits.

Originally Posted by RAM

And you don't really believe it is just, do you? I mean, would you want to see it put in practice as the law in America? Suppose you hit a pedestrian and are found guilty of negligent driving. Would you feel it was JUST for your spinal cord to be severed to make you a paraplegic like the person you hit? That's insane.
And worse, there are many situations where it could not be applied at all. For example, suppose someone raped your wife. Should his wife be raped??? CWH says yes. And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.

2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice? Some things are insane.

I can see your thinking and this is where true wisdom ought to be applied. Each case has to be taken on its merits. The law attempts to try and write every possible eventuality into the law and will refer to past trials to see what judgement was made, and the law ruled on so it can be applied elsewhere.
Accidents will happen, and as I said (but have to repeat myself) the cities of refuge were set up. You can present all the complications of modern-day living, but you still have to decide between what is accidental and what is premeditated. Just consider the straight forward premeditated crimes to begin with. Inflicting the same punishment on the prepetrator as the crime, ought to make would-be criminals think twice.

Originally Posted by RAM

My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?

Again, you use the word "barbaric" as if repeating the word is going to strengthen your argument. Jurisprudence has led to the mismash of laws that have been made and are not controlling the present-day situation. Of course, it is working to a degree, but if the law is not working as effectively as it should, maybe a simpler and more effective law should be reverted to.

Originally Posted by RAM

And what about Jesus? I thought he was teaching true morality when he said:

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.?

This is the ideal which victims should take. Anyone who believes that God will give each and every person their just rewards, can be content to leave all judgment in God's hands. This is not going to work in a society that disobeys God's laws and so God deals with it His way. If we are victims of crime, I said (but again have to repeat myself), the victim can exercise mercy and let the perpetrator of the crime off the punishment that is due to them. Mercy can be exercised and where mercy is shown, it is not a "barbaric" law as you claim"

Originally Posted by RAM

What's going on? I thought everyone agreed that the teaching of Jesus was the highest morality. But here we see he is contrasting his morality with that of the Old Testament! And why did he use that circuitous language "ye have heard that it hath been said" when he was talking about the eternal law of God given in the Torah in which not a jot or tittle would pass? It's all very confused.

Maybe, you need time to sort this out. I am not saying an "eye for an eye" is a perfect law to meet every situation, but in some instances, it is vey good justice. I think the law of Moses says something different when something is stolen and would need to find the relevant laws. "an eye for an eye" is not a phrase that appears in the OT (as far as I can find). Maybe, that was how the law was intepreted and implemented. I have said, it is not perfect, but could be better than what we have now. I think Jesus knew enough of what was contained in the inspired scriptures, not to be confused.

Originally Posted by RAM

That's not true. I accuse the Bible of teaching that God is immoral. Like when he commanded genocide, and participated in the killing of every man, woman, and child of the tribe of Benjamin with full knowledge that the Israelites would then kill every man, woman, and child of the town of Jabesh-Gilead with the express purpose of kidnapping 400 virgins as "wives" for the remaining soldiers of Benjamin!

We have gone over this elsewhere so I am not going over this again here. It is your opinion, we will leave it at that.

Originally Posted by RAM

I have never refused to acknowledge that God shows mercy in the Bible.

Good, I am pleased to hear it. You believe God can be merciful, but you have thrown away your belief in God. If not, maybe you should rewrite the Bible and leave out anything you see is not written by the imaginations of men and see what is left. It might make for a short read.

Originally Posted by RAM

But his mercy to David was entirely unjust. David should have been killed, but he went free, and it was his innocent son that was killed! That is mercy to the guilty and injustice to the innocent. It is a double perversion of justice attributed to God in the Bible.

To you it is unjust, like the workers who arrive at the eleveth hour and get paid a full day's wage. David was shown great mercy, and that is what we all need to be shown in the day of judgement. As to the wives Absolom used to humiltate his father David, this goes to show that David suffered the consequence of his actions and his rulership of his own household was diminished. The action of Absolom and his father's wives are of Absalom's doing and that is where the blame lies for that action. God punished David openely and David paid the price of his actions. The death of the infant is tradgic but has to be got into perspective. David took the blame and admitted his guilt. David repented and the sincerity of that repetance is what counted with God.

Originally Posted by RAM

You have totally, completely, and absolutely, missed the entire point. If we were talking about the sins of humans, there would be no problem. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about unjust acts and moral abominations that the BIBLE attributes to GOD. Got it?

I have not missed the point you were making, you keep saying I do. We are diametrically opposed; plain and simple. Anything I say is seen by you as the opposite to what you claim. I am not missing your point, merely giving you an alternative point of view and saying that you should blame man and not God. The root cause is man; not God.

Originally Posted by RAM

I agree there are many problems with modern laws. But that's because humans are involved. It wouldn't be better if we went back to an "eye for an eye" I can assure you of that! For example, what if the person was found innocent after the law removed his eye? As it is, we can let him out of jail. Under your system, it would be impossible to to give him back his eye.

All the best,

Richard

I know there is the possibilty of misjustice being applied and hence the abolishment of the death penalty. It would be better if we could teach society to live better in the first place, but then this is not working. Criminals these days are getting away too lighthly and the sentences do not match the crime and the sentences are no deterrent. We have an impossible situation to combat and yet this is what Christ will have the power to do when he returns. Jesus will show mankind how to rule with power and in righteousness. It will be interesting to compare the judgement and justice of Jesus with jurisprudence of RAM.

Hello Richard
I see we are diametrically opposed. This is evident from most or your replies to my statements and therefore it is not worth me reasserting them. It is interesting to read your replies and see what arguments you throw up and so, I will answer the questions you have raised.

Hi David,

Yes, we certainly have "diametrically opposed views" in this case. I am glad you took the time to respond. We both may learn something.

Originally Posted by David M

You see no justice, because you do not look hard enough for how justice is applied. The principle is not about restoring the eye (as I think you know). An eye that has been deliberately poked out by malice cannot be restored. The one who committed the malice should ,by right, forfeit their own eye and realize the suffering they have inflicted on another person. It is not barbaric; only you love to make your wild statements to provoke and appear to want to have the last word. Once your statement has proven to be false and of no value, you should drop it and think of something else to say.

I agree that an "eye for an eye," like the Hindu concept of Karma where a people suffer all the effects (for good or for ill) of there actions, has a profound justice about it. But that kind of justice cannot be imposed through the actions of humans and it is fraught with many problems because unlike God or Karma, humans can never have sufficient knowledge to enact it with true justice. In practice, it is a horrid law that magnifies the suffering of the world.

If you show me wrong on any point, I will admit it. If you think I have failed to do so, you need only bring it to my attention (rub my nose in it) and I will have to answer if I want to retain any credibility.

Originally Posted by David M

Before we go too far into this; The "eye for an eye" phrase is not found in the OT, and so this could be a made-up law of the Israelites. If you find a reference, please refer to the verse. I still maintain, the law if applied correctly and mercifully, could be better than some of the law we have now and that this law has its merits.

Actually, the phrase is found three times in the OT, only it says "eye for eye" rather than "eye for an eye" which is probably why you missed it:

Leviticus 24:19 'If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him -- 20 'fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.

Deuteronomy 19:21 "Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

It is interesting that you said "the law if applied correctly and mercifully, could be better than some of the law we have now and that this law has its merits" given that the law explicitly states "your eye shall not pity."

Originally Posted by David M

And you don't really believe it is just, do you? I mean, would you want to see it put in practice as the law in America? Suppose you hit a pedestrian and are found guilty of negligent driving. Would you feel it was JUST for your spinal cord to be severed to make you a paraplegic like the person you hit? That's insane.
And worse, there are many situations where it could not be applied at all. For example, suppose someone raped your wife. Should his wife be raped??? CWH says yes. And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.

2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice? Some things are insane.

I can see your thinking and this is where true wisdom ought to be applied. Each case has to be taken on its merits. The law attempts to try and write every possible eventuality into the law and will refer to past trials to see what judgement was made, and the law ruled on so it can be applied elsewhere.
Accidents will happen, and as I said (but have to repeat myself) the cities of refuge were set up. You can present all the complications of modern-day living, but you still have to decide between what is accidental and what is premeditated. Just consider the straight forward premeditated crimes to begin with. Inflicting the same punishment on the prepetrator as the crime, ought to make would-be criminals think twice.

The cities of refuge make no sense to me. Why should a murderer be allowed to live if he is lucky enough to escape to a city of refuge, whereas killing him is allowed if he does not? If the man was guilty, should he not be punished? If not guilty, should he not go free?

Establishing laws for punishing criminals is very complex and difficult. The efficacy of deterrents like the death penalty has not been proven. On the contrary, most professional criminologists do not believe it is effective (source):

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide.Eighty-eight percent of the countryís top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that 'debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.'

I agree that "much wisdom ought to be applied" and that's the problem. We are talking about the law of the omniscient God ... but it just happens to look like the Law of Hammurabi which predates the Torah and also had the "eye for an eye" law (source).

And what about the fact that God passed the wives of Saul to David, and then from David to Absalom as punishment? This would be like Obama screwing the wives of Osama Bin Laden to humiliate him after capturing him. It is totally insane. No one would approve of such actions. And where is God's mercy on those poor women who were trapped first in the harem of Saul, then of David, and then of Absalom? Why did God inflict such pain and suffering on them by decreeing that they would be screwed on the rooftop? Where is the justice in that? It looks like the typical primitive display male dominance through sexual violence against the women of an enemy. And beyond all that, why didn't God prohibit the keeping of harems in the first place? The moral problems with the Bible are legion.

Originally Posted by David M

My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?

Again, you use the word "barbaric" as if repeating the word is going to strengthen your argument. Jurisprudence has led to the mismash of laws that have been made and are not controlling the present-day situation. Of course, it is working to a degree, but if the law is not working as effectively as it should, maybe a simpler and more effective law should be reverted to.

We all use words to express our opinions, and it is my opinion that the "eye for an eye" law is barbaric. I do not intend my statement of opinion to replace reasoned argument.

I agree that jurisprudence has led to a mishmash of incoherent laws. But that can't be avoided because we are always learning and growing and the people who write the laws have their own biases and opinions. It's very difficult to write good laws. And it takes decades or even centuries to remove old laws that never should have been on the books in the first place.

But I very much doubt that we could live with ourselves if we had to watch people being disfigured by the state as punishment for crimes. And I doubt it would be much of a deterrent - there were plenty of thieves under the Taliban despite the fact that they chopped off their hands. Just think for a minute - it is barbaric beyond all belief to mutilate any human as punishment for a crime!

This is the point you did not answer: Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows the law of an eye for an eye?

Originally Posted by David M

This is the ideal which victims should take. Anyone who believes that God will give each and every person their just rewards, can be content to leave all judgment in God's hands. This is not going to work in a society that disobeys God's laws and so God deals with it His way. If we are victims of crime, I said (but again have to repeat myself), the victim can exercise mercy and let the perpetrator of the crime off the punishment that is due to them. Mercy can be exercised and where mercy is shown, it is not a "barbaric" law as you claim"

I agree that it is a higher moral ideal for victims to "turn the other cheek." That's a good answer.

Originally Posted by David M

What's going on? I thought everyone agreed that the teaching of Jesus was the highest morality. But here we see he is contrasting his morality with that of the Old Testament! And why did he use that circuitous language "ye have heard that it hath been said" when he was talking about the eternal law of God given in the Torah in which not a jot or tittle would pass? It's all very confused.

Maybe, you need time to sort this out. I am not saying an "eye for an eye" is a perfect law to meet every situation, but in some instances, it is vey good justice. I think the law of Moses says something different when something is stolen and would need to find the relevant laws. "an eye for an eye" is not a phrase that appears in the OT (as far as I can find). Maybe, that was how the law was intepreted and implemented. I have said, it is not perfect, but could be better than what we have now. I think Jesus knew enough of what was contained in the inspired scriptures, not to be confused.

I agree, the law is not perfect. And that's the problem - we cannot use the Bible as a moral guide if its laws are less than perfect, i.e. morally inferior.

Let me ask again: Could you really abide the practice of this law in the modern age, where criminals are deliberately mutilated by the government? Really?

Originally Posted by David M

I have never refused to acknowledge that God shows mercy in the Bible.

Good, I am pleased to hear it. You believe God can be merciful, but you have thrown away your belief in God. If not, maybe you should rewrite the Bible and leave out anything you see is not written by the imaginations of men and see what is left. It might make for a short read.

Yes, I agree completely that the Bible frequently presents God as showing mercy in the Bible. But the Bible also shows God doing things that I cannot believe the true God would do. Hence, I cannot believe in the God of the Bible.

But why would I want to rewrite the Bible? The Koran constantly speaks of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, the most common Arabic phrase used by Muslims is "Bismillah ir-rachman ir-rachim" which means "in the name of Allah, the merciful and the beneficent." The mere fact that a book says its god is merciful does not give me any reason to believe it's really the "Word of God."

Originally Posted by David M

But his mercy to David was entirely unjust. David should have been killed, but he went free, and it was his innocent son that was killed! That is mercy to the guilty and injustice to the innocent. It is a double perversion of justice attributed to God in the Bible.

To you it is unjust, like the workers who arrive at the eleveth hour and get paid a full day's wage. David was shown great mercy, and that is what we all need to be shown in the day of judgement. As to the wives Absolom used to humiltate his father David, this goes to show that David suffered the consequence of his actions and his rulership of his own household was diminished. The action of Absolom and his father's wives are of Absalom's doing and that is where the blame lies for that action. God punished David openely and David paid the price of his actions. The death of the infant is tradgic but has to be got into perspective. David took the blame and admitted his guilt. David repented and the sincerity of that repetance is what counted with God.

No, it is not unjust "to me" - it is objectively unjust. If other people must suffer the consequences of their crimes, why not David? And why did David's innocent son have to die? And why did his wives have to be publicly humiliated in the more fundamental form by being screwed on the rooftop?

And how can you say that it was God punished David but Absalom is responsible?

Originally Posted by David M

Originally Posted by RAM

Originally Posted by David M

Instead of blaming God, you should be blaming mankind. It is the free choice mankind has had that has brought all the trouble on the world. Blame mankind for all the wrong choices. In Rose's book and I would here agree, men are probably more to blame for all the wrong choices made than women.

You have totally, completely, and absolutely, missed the entire point. If we were talking about the sins of humans, there would be no problem. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about unjust acts and moral abominations that the BIBLE attributes to GOD. Got it?

I have not missed the point you were making, you keep saying I do. We are diametrically opposed; plain and simple. Anything I say is seen by you as the opposite to what you claim. I am not missing your point, merely giving you an alternative point of view and saying that you should blame man and not God. The root cause is man; not God.

It appears that you are continuing to miss the point. It has nothing to do with any disagreement between us. It is the POINT that you are missing when you say "Instead of blaming God, you should be blaming mankind." My point has absolutely nothing to do with sins that people have committed. The Bible could be filled from beginning to end with the sins of mankind and I wouldn't have a word to say against it. The problem is that GOD HIMSELF HAS INSTITUTED UNJUST LAWS AND COMMANDS. I understand that we differ on this point, and that's fine. But it is entirely erroneous to say that the issue is centered on human sin. That's simply not the point, and as long as you fail to see this, you will be missing the point.

Originally Posted by David M

I know there is the possibilty of misjustice being applied and hence the abolishment of the death penalty. It would be better if we could teach society to live better in the first place, but then this is not working. Criminals these days are getting away too lighthly and the sentences do not match the crime and the sentences are no deterrent. We have an impossible situation to combat and yet this is what Christ will have the power to do when he returns. Jesus will show mankind how to rule with power and in righteousness. It will be interesting to compare the judgement and justice of Jesus with jurisprudence of RAM.

I wish you well.

David

We have a lot of agreement on those points. Human jurisprudence is very flawed. And we even agree largely about the solution - a change of heart and mind. We differ only in how that solution will be implemented. I believe it will come through the continual advancement of secular humanity, like what we've seen in the last few centuries. The world is constantly improving. I live like a king compared to folks just a hundred years ago, and I have almost no fear of disease, and I am fed very well, and educated, and have almost no fear of violence (unlike most of human history) and on and on the improvements wrought by secular humanity through science and education is the only hope we have.

Thanks for working with me on these difficult issues.

All the very best to you,

Richard

Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.

Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

All around the world it is men who rape women and deny them their rights; throughout the pages of the Bible it is men who deny women their rights and approve of rape. The men who wrote the Bible say that God inspired it.

It is men who rape and deny women their rights.

It is the male authored Bible that promotes rape and denies women their rights.

Men say the Bible was inspired by God.

The conclusions one can come to is either men 'made-up' a male god to conform to their desires to dominate women, or Yahweh is a male-biased god who created women to be used by men.

Rose

In keeping with the title of this Thread I would like to focus on point #2 "It is the male authored Bible that promotes rape and denies women their rights."

I chose the verses in 2Samuel to epitomize the status of women as the property of men, which Yahweh uses as weapons to punish men. The men themselves are not directly punished for their sins, but rather women are used to inflict a sort of perverted "punishment" upon them by allowing the men to rape the women.

In the example below it is Saul who has transgressed the laws of Yahweh, so as punishment his wives are given to David to be raped (the reason I use the word rape is because anytime a woman is sexually used against her will it is considered rape). As time goes on David sees a woman named Bathsheba whom he desires and commits adultery with. Bathsheba is the wife of Uriah who is the captain of his army, so David sends Uriah to the front lines to have him killed, so he can marry her. Now, Yahweh is none to happy about this bad behavior of David especially since he gave David Saul's wives, so as punishment he takes the wives of Saul that he gave to David and gives them to Davids son Absalom to rape upon his housetop! Once again, Yahweh's perverted punishment is inflicted on the innocent women who have been used as property and raped. David even gets to keep the woman he committed adultery with, yet his innocent baby is killed!

It seems like the men are getting rewarded and the women screwed, or is this what God calls justice!

2Sam.12:7-11 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives (Saulís) into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives (formerly Saulís) before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2 Sam.16:21-22 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house; and all Israel shall hear that thou art abhorred of thy father: then shall the hands of all that are with thee be strong. So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubinesin the sight of all Israel.

When you compare the capture of the 32,000 virgins and compare their situation of that which was reported as happening in the Congo war, one begins to see why the capture of the women was humane compared to that of the Congo. Here are two reports.

Christian Science Monitor:"In the Congo, sexual violence has become so common that the eastern provinces are sometimes called the Ground Zero of rape. Tens of thousands of women have been raped by armed combatants seeking to destroy communities by assaulting the women. In the Congo it has become common to say rape is a weapon of war"

The New York Times:"I've never reported on a war more barbaric than Congo's, it haunts me. I've seen women who have been mutilated, children who have been forced to eat their parent's flesh, girls who have been subjected to rapes that have destroyed their insides"

God did use the Israelites as a weapon of war but never used tactics like this. Wars have always continued down the ages, and God has brought punishment on some nations, including His chosen race Israel.

The two articles just illustrate how evil men can be and that is happening in the world today. Would we want God to put a stop to this? God will! God will punish the nations severly for what they hav done. Man is 6,000 years has not improved his nature. When we read of what is happening in the Congo and think that is bad, we should also imagine the depravity of the people in the time leading up to the Flood and God's judgment on those people and how God used Israel to destroy the Canaanites, though Israel did not follow God's instructions to the letter.

When we see events as described happening in the Congo and this is the tip of the iceberg of all wars and injustices and attrocities taking place in the world, what hope is there that mankind can teach itself to stop this. Good people have tried, God has tried and yet mankind can be the most evil. I was going to say beyond imagination, but the worst we can ever imagine, that is what man can do. That is why it is good if we do not give in to our imaginations and do such things ourselves. We might not do such horrible things as described above, yet we do give in to our imaginations. Sometimes we ignore the consequence to others and just do what we want to do. In that respect, we are selfish. We do that is pleasing to our eyes. It is no different from when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. She saw it was pleasant to the eye, she desired to eat it and thought it would do her no harm or that any harm would come from eating it. How mistaken she was in her thinking.

Since man is incapable of controlling himself, I am pleased to know that God will put matter right. God has let man rule long enough and as God declared; unless the days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved. In many respects the world is on a disaster course. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. The result of what will be a third world war will cause havoc around the world. Out of all that destruction and chaos will come a new world order with Christ (the man) showing us how to rule and how that ruling in righteousness is the only way to rule. Man will eventually learn, and the hard way, but for those who believe and want to be saved by God, it is reassuring to know that God will do this and will restore the earth to it former glory and all the evil and horrors we see taking place in the world today, will one day, be a thing of the past.

And worse, that's exactly how God behaved when he took David's wives and gave them to be screwed on the rooftop by Absalom.

2 Samuel 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

Where is God's compassion on those poor women? He passed them around like party treats from Saul to David to Absalom. God was punishing David by having another man screw his wives! That's the primitive morality of an "eye for an eye" coupled with the barbaric male dominance sexual display. They got screwed by all three men! Did they have any choice? Is this justice?

My form of justice would begin with modern civilized jurisprudence! I wouldn't go back to a barbaric law like an eye for an eye! Why do you think there is no civilized nation that follows that law?

I was shocked in the way you put it, so i read it myself again that passage, and its about the punishment of David for killing Uria and taking his wife.
As i read it, it is just a way God puts what He knows is going to happen(He can calculate the future)
Sin creates sin, Jesus was'nt born yet you know.
David's sin just makes the men's free will to burst to the worst. God just sees mans free will long before they act on it, and the punishment by God there, was just God seeing the future of what Absolom would do. That's how i see it, but you made it look different, i guess we see same thing differently.
Your form of justice as you say is formed by Jesus changing the world to be better, if you have a good form of justice, it is God to give the glory, not you.
And if you read about David giving himself a death-punishment, before Natan the prophet said the man you gave the death-punishment is you, God was more merciful than David.

If you lived at that time, i guess you would be like Absalom, seeing others sin, just makes you want do greater sin, or if you see, hounor in doing good, you would only do good to get the hounor.
Jesus could'nt change the hearts of the pharisees because they wanted their own hounor. So people not believing in Jesus today dosent shock me, i know my human heart desires hounor, but as i'm not perfect, i believe in the perfect Jesus, giving Him the Hounor. Not even sure if i write hounor correctly :/

I think the time before Noah, was human evolution with no interacting from God after Adam, untill He picked Noah, after Noah, God interacted with his decendents, and Abraham became a man whom God wanted to interact with, and after that with Moses and his people, i guess it was a time God needed to interact with a group of people who will if God don't interact will be a fallen race, just like before Noah. But until the fullfillment of the plan of giving us Jesus, God interacted with symbolics that shows Jesus before He came, and the so called prophecies about Him spread out through scriptures, is correct, it's not just cherry picking, if it looks like Jesus, it problably is, if the prophecies were open and direct for all to know it's Jesus when He came, they would have never crucified Him, and no unrightouess death for our sins, and the God would still have to interact like He did in the OT.
I guess God can explain it better, but that's my little clue of God.

When you compare the capture of the 32,000 virgins and compare their situation of that which was reported as happening in the Congo war, one begins to see why the capture of the women was humane compared to that of the Congo. Here are two reports.

Christian Science Monitor:"In the Congo, sexual violence has become so common that the eastern provinces are sometimes called the Ground Zero of rape. Tens of thousands of women have been raped by armed combatants seeking to destroy communities by assaulting the women. In the Congo it has become common to say rape is a weapon of war"

The New York Times:"I've never reported on a war more barbaric than Congo's, it haunts me. I've seen women who have been mutilated, children who have been forced to eat their parent's flesh, girls who have been subjected to rapes that have destroyed their insides"

God did use the Israelites as a weapon of war but never used tactics like this. Wars have always continued down the ages, and God has brought punishment on some nations, including His chosen race Israel.

The two articles just illustrate how evil men can be and that is happening in the world today. Would we want God to put a stop to this? God will! God will punish the nations severly for what they hav done. Man is 6,000 years has not improved his nature. When we read of what is happening in the Congo and think that is bad, we should also imagine the depravity of the people in the time leading up to the Flood and God's judgment on those people and how God used Israel to destroy the Canaanites, though Israel did not follow God's instructions to the letter.

When we see events as described happening in the Congo and this is the tip of the iceberg of all wars and injustices and attrocities taking place in the world, what hope is there that mankind can teach itself to stop this. Good people have tried, God has tried and yet mankind can be the most evil. I was going to say beyond imagination, but the worst we can ever imagine, that is what man can do. That is why it is good if we do not give in to our imaginations and do such things ourselves. We might not do such horrible things as described above, yet we do give in to our imaginations. Sometimes we ignore the consequence to others and just do what we want to do. In that respect, we are selfish. We do that is pleasing to our eyes. It is no different from when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit. She saw it was pleasant to the eye, she desired to eat it and thought it would do her no harm or that any harm would come from eating it. How mistaken she was in her thinking.

Since man is incapable of controlling himself, I am pleased to know that God will put matter right. God has let man rule long enough and as God declared; unless the days be shortened, no flesh shall be saved. In many respects the world is on a disaster course. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. The result of what will be a third world war will cause havoc around the world. Out of all that destruction and chaos will come a new world order with Christ (the man) showing us how to rule and how that ruling in righteousness is the only way to rule. Man will eventually learn, and the hard way, but for those who believe and want to be saved by God, it is reassuring to know that God will do this and will restore the earth to it former glory and all the evil and horrors we see taking place in the world today, will one day, be a thing of the past.

David

Here are some videos why Congolese soldiers raped and the atrocious rapes in Congo. The videos saddens me and they show how evil and wicked and horrible men can be , can't imagine what it's like during Noah's time. Hope Rose will love them

May God forgive them.

Last edited by CWH; 04-26-2012 at 09:18 AM.

Ask and You shall receive,
Seek and You shall find,
Knock and the door will be open unto You.

Here are some videos why Congolese soldiers raped and the atrocious rapes in Congo. The videos saddens me and they show how evil and wicked and horrible men can be , can't imagine what it's like during Noah's time. Hope Rose will love them

May God forgive them.

I'm not sure why you posted those videos, because they only prove that any god like Yahweh who would command the rape of women is truly a pathetic moral monster! It sickens my stomach to think that the Hebrew soldiers were just like the men portrayed in the videos and the commander who ordered them to rape was Yahweh!

I'm not sure why you posted those videos, because they only prove that any god like Yahweh who would command the rape of women is truly a pathetic moral monster! It sickens my stomach to think that the Hebrew soldiers were just like the men portrayed in the videos and the commander who ordered them to rape was Yahweh!

Rose

Precisely, to stimulate your obsession! The 32,000 virgins were not raped but were married to the Israelites soldiers and there are many proofs that they were given in marriage and were not forcefully raped. Have you seen any of the Congolese soldiers marrying their rape victims? I know it will opened an old can of worms and I don't wish to discuss with someone who is obsessed with God ordering the rapes.

Does it sounds like rapes with all those words such as wife, bring her home, husband, not sell her, make merchandise of her....? These are not the behaviors of rapists as seen in the videos!

Deuteronomy 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt notmake merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

God Blessings to all/

Ask and You shall receive,
Seek and You shall find,
Knock and the door will be open unto You.